I was just rewatching Marvel’s Avengers End Game. It's amazing the way people watch supernatural heroes in movies and get a thrill at the story resolution on screen, but don't recognize that we are in an actual spiritual battle for our nation and our souls. And that THEY can be the hero. That They can access the secret power to restore normalcy and decency. They can pray, they can vote, they can lead others. They can phone, write and rally.
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
This is not a promise to Israel alone, but to the people of God.
And if there isn’t a change on the path we are headed to, it’s gonna get ugly.
There is a pretender in the White House.
The military is complicit. While Secretary of Defense Austin seems to have some understanding that China is a real military threat to the United States, he sees Climate Change as an existential threat.
At the Leaders’ Summit on Climate convened by President Joe Biden on Earth Day, April 22, Austin told a virtual gathering of the world’s leaders, including Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping, that climate change is a national security threat not just for his nation, but for all nations.
"Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis," he said. "We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does."
How does a military fight climate?
Hurricanes have done great damage to the military capacity of the US military. Air Force fighter aircraft damaged, but primarily because decisions to move them from the path of the storm were not made in time.
Camp LeJeune has been damaged by hurricane activity.
Blame it on the weather, as if man’s activities can start or stop hurricanes.
What centers of power can we rely on before the 2022 mid-terms?
Supreme Court Activity
A couple things have happened that can give us hope concerning the Supreme Court
You’ve got to understand that when you don’t see activity on the Supreme Court that you’d like to see, it’s because there is probably not enough support among the Justices to get the result you’d like.
Take gun rights. Why haven’t we seen more activity in recent years after the encouragement of Heller and McDonald.
DC vs Heller in 2008 said that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.
That left a question as to the limits of the regulations that can be placed by governments.
McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 (only 2 years later) told Chicago that their restrictions were unconstitutional.
That the finding of Heller that the right to bear arms could not be denied by the Feds, could not be infringed by the states or municipalities either. They did insist that there could be regulation. So much for “not be infringed”.
But it was a positive direction.
It's been eleven years since a major 2A case and why is that?
Because those on the court that want to see a decision in a certain direction made sure that precedent would not be set in the wrong direction by a court majority that would rule unfavorably.
What that means is that when you see that the court will take a case, it means that it has a high degree of probability of an affirmative ruling. Maybe.
Recently the SCOTUS ruled that police could NOT execute a warrantless confiscation of firearms.
Some police agencies were using the same power that allows them to search for firearms in a car or to have an abandoned car towed to take the legally owned firearms from a citizen they were led to believe might commit suicide with one. After assuring him they wouldn’t if he went with them for an evaluation.
That was not a red flag law.
The ruling sounds good. But it is not a proscription against Red Flag laws that would presumably be operating under a warrant system.
Supreme Court to hear gun-control case next term on carrying weapons outside home.
Earlier, NYC rescinded a “law” that kept owners from transporting their guns, just in time to avoid the SCOTUS from ruling on it. See how it works?
National Rifle Association-backed lawsuit. Say what you will about the NRA these days. This is why I support them.
The court will hear the challenge to a century-old New York law in the term that begins in October. The restriction requires those who seek a permit to carry a concealed weapon to show a special need for self-defense and is similar to laws in Maryland, Massachusetts and elsewhere that the court in the past has declined to review.
This will lead to Shall-Issue in all states. Can reciprocity be far behind?
No more worrying if you accidentally crossed a state line with a law that will end your vacation with a jail term?
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) told the Supreme Court that the state’s law “has existed in the same essential form since 1913 and descends from a long Anglo-American tradition of regulating the carrying of firearms in public.” Remember, many sources consider that law in 1913 (a long Anglo tradition?) to have it’s roots in racism against blacks and immigrants.
Thank you, Donald J Trump. ________________________________________________________________
Next is a hearing on abortion restrictions.
Abortion went from first tri-mester only to full blown infanticide is considered. I know, it was always infanticide.
Now maybe some sanity will return. A little.
When Mississippi passed a law in early 2018 that banned nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, state officials and anti-abortion advocates knew it was unlikely to survive challenges in the lower courts. The goal was to get to the US Supreme Court. The court announced it would hear the Mississippi case during the next term and consider whether any ban on abortion before a fetus is viable — that is, before it can survive outside of a person’s womb — is unconstitutional. It’s a question that lower courts had considered settled as they repeatedly blocked the Mississippi law and other similar bans that were enacted in more than 10 states during the Trump administration.
Remember “Reproductive Rights” are not about reproduction. They are about killing.
Always point that out when you hear that phrase.
Let me repeat. “Reproductive Rights” are not about reproduction. They are about killing.
Mississippi’s “The Gestational Age Act” is not a heartbeat bill or a viability bill. Of all things, it is very similar to the original First Trimester ruling of Roe v Wade. Heartbeat is typically much earlier and viability a few weeks later.
The justices declined to take up two other questions that Mississippi had asked the court to weigh in on, leaving the door open to future abortion fights: what standard courts should use to analyze previability abortion bans, and whether abortion providers should be able to challenge these types of laws as third parties.
The intricacies of SCOTUS decisions are byzantine, looking at previous rulings, other law, rarely at just the facts in front of it.
Certainly, the beast of Roe V Wade will be looming over this case, even thought so many legal scholars see Roe as cut from a fabricated cloth.
Roe looks to a right to privacy that does not exist, but appearing to have a root in warrantless searches ala the Fourth Amendment, but SCOTUS misses the plain language of the Second Amendment, as in Heller, relying on the 14th to justify their rightful decision.
But remember what I said about your amazing secret power. You know like the one the hero discovers, having never realized he or she had it or it’s power. Pray! Call upon God in heaven to speak to these people making these decisions.
Join with others in prayer. Speak up in person and on social media. Make Life look normal.
Help make life normal again.
The Covid Hate Crimes Act was just signed into law. I had a hard time wrapping my head around that until I realized it was because the ChiVi was supposed to be inspiring violence against anyone with Asian genetics.
Laws based on genetics.
What could possibly go wrong? And what is hateful about Covid?
So, as my friend Pascal Fervor asked, when can we expect a hate crimes Act for Jews? For Conservatives? For Christians?
What does the motivation for a crime have to do on the penalty for a crime?
How does this stand?
We see so much legalized racism these days.
I was going to interview Chicago Mayor Laurie Lightfoot (is that her real name, or better yet is that her real face?) about this, but she refuses to talk to me since I am white.